There has been a lot of discussion and opinions shared about the Sonos 5.1 offering. During those discussions we have sometimes lost track of the original point.
Here it is in one place:
1) In my listening experience, the Sonos 5.1 offering, when it includes a Beam, Sub and Play:3 rears does not perform to the expectation I have for a 5.1 system, at the Sonos price point. This is mainly because I need to turn down the Sub so that the Beam is not lost in the surround experience.
2) A vast amount of the music that exists was engineered to be played on Stereo pairs. Sonos offers Play:5 as excellent stereo pairs. They provide a good soundstage for music. The Play:5 sounds even better with a Sub adding low frequencies to the stereo pair.
3) It is reasonable to have a 75” TV, Beam, Sub, rear Play:3s and front Play:5s in a large room. The Play:5s do a great job playing music due to the ability to physically place the speakers away form each other and enhance the sound stage. When a Sub is easily added for music, even better.
4) It would be nice, if in 5.1, Sonos customers could benefit from the power and distance of the front Play:5 speakers, already in the room, to have an even better surround sound experience. The Beam should be more than able to match the Play:5s by focusing on the center channel, in particular providing clear voice/dialogue to the listener.
5) In the above, 5 speaker plus Sub setup, in a large room, we could let the excellent Sub rumble away and not overtake the Beam.
6) Right now, Sonos users cannot add front Play:5s (that may already be in the room for music) to the 5.1 setup.
7) Right now, even if we could add the Play:5s to the 5.1 setup we have to re-run the TruePlay to switch back to 2.1. (A separate request, but also a valid one for more than just this application is to be able to save various speaker configurations and TruePlay setups)
😎 Sonos will not confirm that users will ever be able to add front L/R speakers to the 5.1 setup.
9) Sonos will not confirm that users will be able to move a speaker from the living room, to the outside deck and not have to run TruePlay each time the speaker(s) move (as an example).
10) Beam, Playbar and Playbase are the only self-contained, all-in-one options from Sonos that can connect directly to an output from the TV. So unless the eventual Play:3 replacement, or next gen Play:5, are able to connect directly to a TV output, we have to have a soundbar type product in the middle, under the TV.
11) The scenario I describe conforms to the Sonos philosophy of providing, among other things, speaker solutions that can grow with user needs in a way that is innovative and sounds great. It is not outside of the scope of what Sonos speakers could do.
I suggest, that instead of discussing the semantics of what a 5.1 system is, or what a soundbar is, let’s convince Sonos to provide even better listening options. I can’t think of a good reason, as customers, not to want to have the best of all worlds available to us. I also believe that Sonos wants this for us.
More options are just better, and as customers we can ask for them. In fact, as consumers in a free market economy, it's our right to be as politely-persistent as we feel necessary to have our voices heard.
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
You really do have great suggestions. I’m sorry if I took the intent of earlier posts out of context.
I appreciate your kind words. I really should have posted this instead of arguing across 5-6 threads.
Thanks for putting your suggestions in one post. I also appreciate the more constructive tone. I regret that we started off on the wrong foot, and I look forward to having a further constructive discussion. Let me add my considerations:
There's a lot here that makes sense. Of course questions would still need to be answered on how many people would want to add 2 more speakers to their setup, and if the hardware of the Playbar/Base and Beam could wirelessly "drive" more speakers than they currently do. But this is for Sonos to consider. In your example, I think a Playbar would already be a better match than the Beam as it is more powerful, but it of course lacks HDMI, so your suggestions would be good additions to a Playbar 2.0 evolution. Using a One or a Play 3 successor as a dedicated center might even be a better option.
Additionally, I think it it is a missed opportunity in this regard to not be able to add a center channel to the new Amp, which could then create full 3.0 as opposed to a virtual center. From there it seems like a small step to a full fledged Sonos A/V Amp with multiple HDMI ins and 7.1 speaker outs. Sonos chose not to go that route but we can only guess as to why. It's choices like these that lead to disappointments like yours.
Personally, I'm happy with my current 5.1 setup for both music and HT, and I'm not looking for additional speakers, but like most users I would like more codecs supported and multiple HDMI input, eliminating the need for switches or the TV to do the work. I agree that Sonos and its products have the potential to do what you describe above, but I'm doubtful if Sonos should venture this far into Home Theater, as I've also described in this thread about Dolby Atmos. And given their choices it seems that Sonos is either unable to do so, or unsure of the returns of such a venture.
Regarding the lack of communication from Sonos, when asking for a return of the "feature request" section, the answer I got comes as close to a reason for this behavior as we're ever going to get, I'm afraid.
There's a lot here that makes sense. Of course questions would still need to be answered on how many people would want to add 2 more speakers to their setup, and if the hardware of the Playbar/Base and Beam could wirelessly "drive" more speakers than they currently do. But this is for Sonos to consider. In your example, I think a Playbar would already be a better match than the Beam as it is more powerful, but it of course lacks HDMI, so your suggestions would be good additions to a Playbar 2.0 evolution. Using a One or a Play 3 successor as a dedicated center might even be a better option.
Additionally, I think it it is a missed opportunity in this regard to not be able to add a center channel to the new Amp, which could then create full 3.0 as opposed to a virtual center. From there it seems like a small step to a full fledged Sonos A/V Amp with multiple HDMI ins and 7.1 speaker outs. Sonos chose not to go that route but we can only guess as to why. It's choices like these that lead to disappointments like yours.
Personally, I'm happy with my current 5.1 setup for both music and HT, and I'm not looking for additional speakers, but like most users I would like more codecs supported and multiple HDMI input, eliminating the need for switches or the TV to do the work. I agree that Sonos and its products have the potential to do what you describe above, but I'm doubtful if Sonos should venture this far into Home Theater, as I've also described in this thread about Dolby Atmos. And given their choices it seems that Sonos is either unable to do so, or unsure of the returns of such a venture.
Regarding the lack of communication from Sonos, when asking for a return of the "feature request" section, the answer I got comes as close to a reason for this behavior as we're ever going to get, I'm afraid.
I have a beam and sub with play:1 surrounds in a 7m x 4m (rectangular with 2.4m ceiling height). My personal experience is different from yours as I think the sub complements the beam perfectly. Mine is fine set at 50% with excellent voice clarity from the beam. Obviously a lot of this depends on other factors such as your distance to the TV, volume level of the beam (I'm usually between 30-40% for movies).
I did put in a feature request to enable users to change the cross over frequencies between the beam and the sub as I feel the sub is handling to many lower mid frequencies rather than concentrating purely on the low end bass. This makes it quite directional on occasions, which is annoying if you can not position it near the TV and the beam.
I do definitely agree that i would be good if we could add optional left and right front speakers for separation and used the beam as a centre speaker only. Also, it would definitely good for additional codec support. I have been restricted to having to purchase a Samsung UHD player as it is the only manufacturer that converts to DD 5.1 on the fly (except for the xbox). Personally I would have preferred the Sony as it does Dolby Vision but it was a choice between either that or no surround sound. I think Sonos will need to consider at least DD+ and Atmos in the future if they want to continue in the home theatre market. These codecs seem to be what the streaming services are aiming at rather than DTS.
I did put in a feature request to enable users to change the cross over frequencies between the beam and the sub as I feel the sub is handling to many lower mid frequencies rather than concentrating purely on the low end bass. This makes it quite directional on occasions, which is annoying if you can not position it near the TV and the beam.
I do definitely agree that i would be good if we could add optional left and right front speakers for separation and used the beam as a centre speaker only. Also, it would definitely good for additional codec support. I have been restricted to having to purchase a Samsung UHD player as it is the only manufacturer that converts to DD 5.1 on the fly (except for the xbox). Personally I would have preferred the Sony as it does Dolby Vision but it was a choice between either that or no surround sound. I think Sonos will need to consider at least DD+ and Atmos in the future if they want to continue in the home theatre market. These codecs seem to be what the streaming services are aiming at rather than DTS.
.
Agreed, I moved the Sub under the TV to help with this issue (not my preferred location for it). This is partly what I've been describing as the Beam not "keeping up" with the Sub.
Here it is in one place:
1) In my listening experience, the Sonos 5.1 offering, when it includes a Beam, Sub and Play:3 rears does not perform to the expectation I have for a 5.1 system, at the Sonos price point. This is mainly because I need to turn down the Sub so that the Beam is not lost in the surround experience.
2) A vast amount of the music that exists was engineered to be played on Stereo pairs. Sonos offers Play:5 as excellent stereo pairs. They provide a good soundstage for music. The Play:5 sounds even better with a Sub adding low frequencies to the stereo pair.
3) It is reasonable to have a 75” TV, Beam, Sub, rear Play:3s and front Play:5s in a large room. The Play:5s do a great job playing music due to the ability to physically place the speakers away form each other and enhance the sound stage. When a Sub is easily added for music, even better.
4) It would be nice, if in 5.1, Sonos customers could benefit from the power and distance of the front Play:5 speakers, already in the room, to have an even better surround sound experience. The Beam should be more than able to match the Play:5s by focusing on the center channel, in particular providing clear voice/dialogue to the listener.
5) In the above, 5 speaker plus Sub setup, in a large room, we could let the excellent Sub rumble away and not overtake the Beam.
6) Right now, Sonos users cannot add front Play:5s (that may already be in the room for music) to the 5.1 setup.
7) Right now, even if we could add the Play:5s to the 5.1 setup we have to re-run the TruePlay to switch back to 2.1. (A separate request, but also a valid one for more than just this application is to be able to save various speaker configurations and TruePlay setups)
😎 Sonos will not confirm that users will ever be able to add front L/R speakers to the 5.1 setup.
9) Sonos will not confirm that users will be able to move a speaker from the living room, to the outside deck and not have to run TruePlay each time the speaker(s) move (as an example).
10) Beam, Playbar and Playbase are the only self-contained, all-in-one options from Sonos that can connect directly to an output from the TV. So unless the eventual Play:3 replacement, or next gen Play:5, are able to connect directly to a TV output, we have to have a soundbar type product in the middle, under the TV.
11) The scenario I describe conforms to the Sonos philosophy of providing, among other things, speaker solutions that can grow with user needs in a way that is innovative and sounds great. It is not outside of the scope of what Sonos speakers could do.
I suggest, that instead of discussing the semantics of what a 5.1 system is, or what a soundbar is, let’s convince Sonos to provide even better listening options. I can’t think of a good reason, as customers, not to want to have the best of all worlds available to us. I also believe that Sonos wants this for us.
More options are just better, and as customers we can ask for them. In fact, as consumers in a free market economy, it's our right to be as politely-persistent as we feel necessary to have our voices heard.
So in your opinion is the Beam, Sub and Play3s not a good option? I currently have a Beam and play3s and looking to add the Sub
I did put in a feature request to enable users to change the cross over frequencies between the beam and the sub as I feel the sub is handling to many lower mid frequencies rather than concentrating purely on the low end bass. This makes it quite directional on occasions, which is annoying if you can not position it near the TV and the beam.
I do definitely agree that i would be good if we could add optional left and right front speakers for separation and used the beam as a centre speaker only. Also, it would definitely good for additional codec support. I have been restricted to having to purchase a Samsung UHD player as it is the only manufacturer that converts to DD 5.1 on the fly (except for the xbox). Personally I would have preferred the Sony as it does Dolby Vision but it was a choice between either that or no surround sound. I think Sonos will need to consider at least DD+ and Atmos in the future if they want to continue in the home theatre market. These codecs seem to be what the streaming services are aiming at rather than DTS.
So the sub has to be near the tv for optimal sound ?
No, bass is fairly non directional. I happen to have my SUB under the couch that I sit on while watching the TV.
Additionally, I think it it is a missed opportunity in this regard to not be able to add a center channel to the new Amp, which could then create full 3.0 as opposed to a virtual center. From there it seems like a small step to a full fledged Sonos A/V Amp with multiple HDMI ins and 7.1 speaker outs. Sonos chose not to go that route but we can only guess as to why. It's choices like these that lead to disappointments like yours.
It's old, but I wanted to comment on this point. I think part of the reason is that Sonos wanted to the Amp to be flexible and serve multiple use case for consumers. I'd guess the at more than half of amp owners aren't using it with a TV at all, and would have no use for a center channel option. To these users, while it could just be ignored, is adding cost to the amp and raising the price. With the a phantom channel, the amp works for both sets of users.
You also have to consider that Sonos partially designed this to be used with their new passive speakers in mind, and the ability to trueplay. Since Sonos doesn't make a center channel speaker, then would have to make and sell one just for trueplay. Even without trueplay, it could hurt the sales of the Sonoance speakers since it's preferred to to use the same brand of passive speakers for an HT setup.
Maybe it would have been better to have an Amp:plus or something with the physical center channel option. Don't know if that would have been justified in sales, and likely changed the form factor significantly.
I do have to add that this was me trying to understand the mindset of some of the "Sonos should do proper HT" crowd, since I'm of the opinion that Sonos should absolutely not do a 7.1 AVR. Buy one and add Connect, I would say.
I agree that the decision I'm referring to in my post was likely based on usage statistics, potential issues with unit cost and related market price, and ROI. I think this rings true for many of the features in the OP.
Re: Sonance - not sure if I was aware of the Sonance partnership back then, but yes, agreed.
I agree that the decision I'm referring to in my post was likely based on usage statistics, potential issues with unit cost and related market price, and ROI. I think this rings true for many of the features in the OP.
Re: Sonance - not sure if I was aware of the Sonance partnership back then, but yes, agreed.
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.